The Direct Method

owards the end of the late 1800s, a revolution in language teaching philosophy
took place that is seen by many as the dawn of modern foreign language
teaching. Teachers, frustrated by the limits of the Grammar Translation Method
in terms of its inability to create communicative competence in students, began to
experiment with new ways of teaching language. Basically, teachers began
attempting to teach foreign languages in a way that was more similar to first
language acquisition. It incorporated techniques designed to address all the
areas that the Grammar Translation did not - namely oral communication, more
spontaneous use of the language, and developing the ability to think in the target
language. Perhaps in an almost reflexive action, the method also moved as far
away as possible from various techniques typical of the Grammar Translation
Method - for instance using L1 as the language of instruction, memorizing
grammatical rules and lots of translation between L1 and the target language.

The appearance of the "Direct Method" thus coincided with a new school of
thinking that dictated that all foreign language teaching should occur in the target
language only, with no translation and an emphasis on linking meaning to the
language being learned. The method became very popular during the first
quarter of the 20th century, especially in private language schools in Europe
where highly motivated students could study new languages and not need to
travel far in order to try them out and apply them communicatively. One of the
most famous advocates of the Direct Method was the German Charles Berlitz,
whose schools and Berlitz Method are now world-renowned.

Still, the Direct Method was not without its problems. As Brown (1994:56) points
out, "(it) did not take well in public education where the constraints of budget,
classroom size, time, and teacher background made such a method difficult to
use." By the late 1920s, the method was starting to go into decline and there
was even a return to the Grammar Translation Method, which guaranteed more
in the way of scholastic language learning orientated around reading and
grammar skills. But the Direct Method continues to enjoy a popular following in
private language school circles, and it was one of the foundations upon which the
well-known "Audiolingual Method" expanded from starting half way through the
20th century.

Objectives

The basic premise of the Direct Method is that students will learn to
communicate in the target language, partly by learning how to think in that
language and by not involving L1 in the language learning process whatsoever.
Objectives include teaching the students how to use the language spontaneously
and orally, linking meaning with the target language through the use of realia,
pictures or pantomime (Larsen-Freeman 1986:24). There is to be a direct
connection between concepts and the language to be learned.
Key Features
Richards and Rodgers (1986:9-10) summarize the key features of the Direct
Method thus:

(1) Classroom instruction is conducted exclusively in the target language.

(2) Only everyday vocabulary and sentences are taught.

(3) Oral communication skills are built up in a carefully traded progression

organized around
question-and-answer exchanges between teachers and students in small,
intensive classes.

(4) Grammar is taught inductively.

(5) New teaching points are taught through modeling and practice.

(6) Concrete vocabulary is taught through demonstration, objects, and pictures;

abstract vocabulary
is taught by association of ideas.

(7) Both speech and listening comprehension are taught.

(8) Correct pronunciation and grammar are emphasized.

Typical Techniques

Diane Larsen-Freeman, in her book Techniques and Principles in Language

Teaching (1986:26-27) provides expanded descriptions of some common/typical
techniques closely associated with the Direct Method. The listing here is in
summary form only.

(1) Reading Aloud

(Reading sections of passages, plays or dialogs out loud)

(2) Question and Answer Exercise

(Asking questions in the target language and having students answer in full
sentences)

(3) Student Self-Correction

(Teacher facilitates opportunities for students to self correct using follow-up
questions, tone, etc)

(4) Conversation Practice

 (Teacher asks students and students ask students questions using the target
language)

(5) Fill-in-the-blank Exercise

(Items use target language only and inductive rather than explicit grammar
rules)

(6) Dictation
(Teacher reads passage aloud various amount of times at various tempos,
students writing down
what they hear)

(7) Paragraph Writing

(Students write paragraphs in their own words using the target language and
various models)

Top | Objectives | Key Features | Typical Techniques | Comments

Comments

The Direct Method is undoubtedly a highly effective method in terms of creating

language learners who are very competent in terms of using the target language
communicatively. However, as pointed out above, it requires small class sizes,
motivated learners and talented teachers in order to succeed really well. It is
also an unfortunate fact of life that students of foreign languages these days
need more than just the ability to communicate confidently - they need to be able
to demonstrate grammatical accuracy and good reading skills in order to succeed
in both national and international language testing systems. It becomes
something of an issue in countries where English language learning is primarily
EFL-based (that is, English as a Foreign Language) and there is a distinct
shortage of both (1) the opportunity to apply the language communicatively in
real-life situations outside the actual classroom, and (2) teachers who have the
required level of native or native-like ability in the target language and the
creativity to provide realistic examples to illustrate what elements of the language
actually mean.

Some of the teachers who go on to practice this kind of methodology tend to be

native speakers who travel to foreign countries where thay have no ability in the
local language. In many cases they are not even aware they are following what
is known as the "Direct Method" - they are trying to make the best out of a
difficult classroom situation where creativity and constant (careful) use of the
target language are required to make up for teachers' shortcomings elsewhere,
whether that be a lack of ability in the students' mother language or a lack of
knowledge about various pedagogic approaches to language teaching.

In an interesting development, it is not at all uncommon to find a blend of

teaching techniques consisting of partner teachers - one a native speaker with no
knowledge of the local language, culture or educational system, the other a local
teacher who speaks English as a second or foreign language. The native
speaker is often referred to as the "conversation teacher", and represents the
"global communication" aspect of a marketing strategy so important for private
language institutes. The local teacher may be known as the "grammar and
translation" half of the overall package, the teacher who can use the students'
mother language to control their behavior, put them at ease and explain how the
grammar works. In essence, this kind of teaching teamwork is an often
unconscious effort to combine the Direct Method with the Grammar Translation
Method in an attempt to provide a (basically misguided) "holistic" approach to
teaching the language - the basic premise being that the shortfallings of one are
covered by the other and vice-versa. There are even institutes that consider
themselves "advanced" because they employ a native-speaking teacher who has
a "Direct Method" style approach in combination with a local teacher who
teaches according to a blend of the Grammar Translation Method and the
Audiolingual Method (that is, the local teacher sometimes or often uses L1 to
explain the grammar, but for the rest of the time applies the kind of rote-learning
and over-learning of forms typical of the Audiolingual Method).

How well does such a combination of styles work for the average language
learner? In my opinion, the two styles undermine rather than complement each
other, and inject both unnecessary extra confusion into the language learning
process as well as what could be termed "stereo-typical roles" for teachers based
purely on nationality. For an interesting analysis of this very topic (essentially
"direct" approaches in combination with "indirect" approaches), click here.

I will admit that I myself have been through what I call the "Direct Method for
Initial Classroom Survival" phase, basically because I didn't know better and felt
that with it I was achieving some measure of tangible success as a teacher of
"communicative English". Having (hopefully!) reached a somewhat more
enlightened outlook through both experience and research, I realized that there is
a fundamental flaw to the Direct Approach that has nothing to do with ensuring
the students achieve a sufficient level of proficiency in English structure and
reading. Like many other "modern" language teaching methods that preceded
the "communicative approach", the Direct Method contains nothing in its
essential theory and principles that deals with the learners themselves - cognitive
and affective principles orientated around stepping into the boots of the students
and looking out at the strange and confusing landscape of the foreign language
they are asking (or being asked) to learn.

The Direct Method was an important turning point in the history of foreign
language teaching, and represented a step away from the Grammar Translation
Method that was progressive and heading in the right direction. I would
encourage teachers to view the method in exactly the same way - not a bad way
to teach but a long way short of the big picture modern language teaching
methodology is attempting to achieve.
The Communicative Language Teaching Approach
All the methods described so far are symbolic of the progress foreign language
teaching ideology underwent in the last century. These were methods that came
and went, influenced or gave birth to new methods - in a cycle that could only be
described as competition between rival methods or even passing fads in the
methodological theory underlying foreign language teaching. Finally, by the mid-
eighties or so, the industry was maturing in its growth and moving towards the
concept of a broad "approach" to language teaching that encompassed various
methods, motivations for learning English, types of teachers and the needs of
individual classrooms and students themselves. It would be fair to say that if
there is any one umbrella approach to language teaching that has become the
accepted "norm" in this field, it would have to be the Communicative Language
Teaching Approach. This is also known as CLT.

Overview | Basic Features | Features at Length | Caveats

Basic Features of CLT

David Nunan (1991:279) lists five basic characteristics of Communicative

Language Teaching:

(1) An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target

language.

(2) The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation.

(3) The provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on the language
but also on
the learning process itself.

(4) An enhancement of the learner's own personal experiences as important

contributing
elements to classroom learning.
(5) An attempt to link classroom language learning with language activation
outside the
classroom.

Top | Basic Features | Features at Length | Caveats

CLT Features at Length

Finnochiaro and Brumfit (1983:91-93) compiled this list of CLT features way back
in 1983 as a means of comparing it to the Audiolingual Method. Below each
feature in blue italics is the feature of ALM to which it was being compared.

(1) CLT: Meaning is paramount.

ALM: Attends to structure and form more than meaning.

(2) CLT: Dialogs, if used, center around communicative functions and are not
normally memorized.
ALM: Demands more memorization of structure-based dialogs.

(3) CLT: Contextualization is a basic premise.

ALM: Language items are not necessarily contextualized.

(4) CLT: Language learning is learning to communicate.

ALM: Language Learning is learning structures, sounds or words.

(5) CLT: Effective communication is sought.

ALM: Mastery or "overlearning" is sought.

(6) CLT: Drilling may occur, but peripherially.

ALM: Drilling is a central technique.

(7) CLT: Comprehensible pronunciation is sought.

ALM: Native-speaker-like pronunciation is sought.

(8) CLT: Any device which helps the learners is accepted - varying according to
their age,
interest, etc.
ALM: Grammatical explanation is avoided.

(9) CLT: Attempts to communicate may be encouraged from the very beginning.
ALM: Communicative activities only come after a long process of rigid drills
and exrecises.
(10) CLT: Judicious use of native language is accepted where feasible.
ALM: The use of the students' native language is forbidden.

(11) CLT: Translation may be used where students need or benefit from it.
ALM: Translation is forbidden at early levels.

(12) CLT: Reading and writing can start from the first day, if desired.
ALM: Reading and writing are deferred until speech is mastered.

(13) CLT: The target linguistic system will be learned best through the process
of struggling to
communicate.
ALM: The target linguistic system will be learned through the overt teaching
of the patterns of
the system.

(14) CLT: Communicative competence is the desired goal.

ALM: Linguistic competence is the desired goal.

(15) CLT: Linguistic variation is a central concept in materials and methods.

ALM: Varieties of language are recognized but not emphasized.

(16) CLT: Sequencing is determined by any consideration of content function, or

meaning which
maintains interest.
ALM: The sequence of units is determined solely on principles of linguistic
complexity.

(17) CLT: Teachers help learners in any way that motivates them to work with
the language.
ALM: The teacher controls the learners and prevents them from doing
anything that conflicts with
the theory.

(18) CLT: Language is created by the individual often through trial and error.
ALM: "Language is habit" so error must be prevented at all costs.

(19) CLT: Fluency and acceptable language is the primary goal: accuracy is
judged not in the
abstract but in context.
ALM: Accuracy, in terms of formal correctness, is a primary goal.
(20) CLT: Students are expected to interact with other people, either in the
flesh, through pair and
group work, or in their writings.
ALM: Students are expected to interact with the language system,
embodied in machines or
controlled materials.

(21) CLT: The teacher cannot know exactly what language the students will
use.
ALM: The teacher is expected to specify the language that students are to
use.

(22) CLT: Intrinsic motivation will spring from an interest in what is being
communicated by the
language.
ALM: Intrinsic motivation will spring from an interest in the structure of the
language.

Top | Basic Features | Features at Length | Caveats

Caveats

Brown (1994:78-80) warns that there are certain caveats in the field of language
teaching when it comes to discussing CLT and one's support of the approach,
saying that that support or belief needs to be "qualified". He warns against:

(1) Giving "lip service" to the principles of CLT (because "no one these days
would admit to
a disbelief in principles of CLT; they would be marked as a heretic") without
actually
grounding one's teaching techniques in those principles, or making sure one
indeed
understands and practices according to the characteristics that make CLT
what it is.

(2) Overdoing certain CLT features, for example engaging in real-life authentic
language to
the exclusion of helpful devices such as controlled practice, or vice versa.
Moderation
is needed in combination with common sense and a balanced approach.
(3) The numerous interpretations of what CLT actually "is". CLT is often a
catchcall term,
and does not reflect the fact that not everyone agrees on its interpretation or
application.
Teachers need to be aware that there are many possible versions, and it is
intended as
an "umbrella" term covering a variety of methods.

Top | Basic Features | Features at Length | Caveats

English Raven's
Forum
Discussion Board
ELT
The Communicative approach does a lot to expand on the goal of creating
communicative competence compared to earlier methods that professed the
same objective. Teaching students how to use the language is considered to be
at least as important as learning the language itself. Brown (1994:77) aptly
describes the "march" towards CLT:

"Beyond grammatical discourse elements in communication, we are probing the

nature of social, cultural, and pragmatic features of language. We are exploring
pedagogical means for 'real-life' communication in the classroom. We are trying
to get our learners to develop linguistic fluency, not just the accuracy that has so
consumed our historical journey. We are equipping our students with tools for
generating unrehearsed language performance 'out there' when they leave the
womb of our classrooms. We are concerned with how to facilitate lifelong
language learning among our students, not just with the immediate classroom
task. We are looking at learners as partners in a cooperative venture. And our
classroom practices seek to draw on whatever intrinsically sparks learners to
reach their fullest potential."
CLT is a generic approach, and can seem non-specific at times in terms of how
to actually go about using practices in the classroom in any sort of systematic
way. There are many interpretations of what CLT actually means and involves.
See Types of Learning and The PPP Approach to see how CLT can be applied in
a variety of 'more specific' methods.

The Direct Method

Of these, perhaps the best known is the Direct Method. This is the basis of the approach
that is still used today by the Berlitz language schools.
 • 1. The language is seen as being fundamentally a means of communication. The
language that is taught is ordinary, every-day language.
• 2. The theory of learning is based upon an associationist psychology ; sounds
(words) are associated with objects and with actions, and then ideas are associated
with other ideas. The route into the L2 is direct - the learner does not translate, but
links the L2 word directly with the object that it represents. To do this properly,
she must take an active role in the learning process - both asking and answering
questions, reading aloud and so on. The L2 learning process is, as with Gouin and
Comenius, taken to be very much the same as the L1 learning process.
• 3. The teacher should preferably be a native-speaker of the language. Her task is
to present the language, and to direct classroom activities. The language is
presented through the teacher's monologue, and the use of realia, or images or of
representations of the objects and actions - but it is above all the personal qualities
of the teacher that make or break the learning process. Sauveur, one of the
pioneers of the Direct Method, at the end of the 19thC, would hold the attention
of his learners on his performance, and was able to give elaborate speeches even
on the very first lesson.

Whereas the material and the language of the grammar-translation class had been based
upon great literature and high principle, the Direct Method based material on ordinary
situations in which the learner might expect to find herself on going abroad - a lesson on
the bank, the restaurant, or the hotel - or on subjects of ordinary conversation -
geography, money, the weather. There was little attempt to construct a grammatical
syllabus, and if there was any grammar teaching, it was inductive.

In Grammar-translation, the activities of the learners had been limited to learning by

heart, and to translating, either from the L2 to the L1 or the inverse. In the Direct
classroom, no translation was allowed. Instead, the learner was expected to listen, to
answer questions, to work in pairs or groups on conversations, to write down dictations,
once the written tongue had begun to be an object of study, and to write short passages.
One of the driving ideas was to put the learner in situations in which she was expected to
produce the language.

The learner was expected to become autonomous as quickly as possible, and so the
teacher would train the learners to correct themselves. This could be done through
offering the speaker a choice between what he had just said and another utterance. Or it
could be that the mistake would be signalled by the teacher's repeating the utterance in a
rising tone, or by stopping the repetition just before she got to the error.

As we shall see, the method has its limitations, particularly in schools. It is perhaps better
suited to debutants than to more advanced learners - most of the adults that came into
language schools were, until quite recently, absolute beginners. It is still useful when a
teacher is dealing with a class in which the pupils do not possess a common L1.

Timothy Mason
www.timothyjpmason.com/WebPages
 DIRECT METHOD
Also known as Reform Method / Natural Method / Phonetical Method / Anti-
grammatical Method

All reformers were vehemently opposed to teaching of formal grammar and

aware that language learning was more than the learning of rules and the
acquisition of imperfect translation skills.

Vietor ('Die Sprachunterricht muss umkehren' 1882) "This study of grammar is

a useless torture. It is certainly not understood; therefore it can have no effect
as far as the moulding of the intellect is concerned and no-one could seriously
believe that children could learn their living German tongue from it."

Instead grammar should be acquired inductively by inducing the rules of how

the language behaves from the actual language itself. "Never tell the children
anything they can find out for themselves." (Jesperin 1904)

Direct Method based on belief that:

1 Knowing a language was being able to speak it! Primacy of spoken word.
New method laid great stress on correct pronunciation and target language from
outset. Advocated teaching of oral skills at expense of every traditional aim of
language teaching.
2 Second language learning must be an imitation of first language learning,
as this is the natural way humans learn any language, and so MT has no place
in FL lesson. (Baby never relies on another language to learn its first language).
3 Printed word must be kept away from second language learner for as long
as possible (same as first language learner, who doesn't use printed word until
he has good grasp of speech).
4 The written word / writing should be delayed until after the printed word
has been introduced.

5 The learning of grammar/ translating skills should be avoided because they

involve the application of the MT.

6 All above items must be avoided because they hinder the acquisition of a
good oral proficiency.

Disadvantages of Direct Method

1 Major fallacy of Direct Method was belief that second language should be
learned in way in which first language was acquired - by total immersion
technique. But obviously far less time and opportunity in schools, compared
with small child learning his mother tongue.

2 Is first language learning process really applicable to second foreign

language learning at later stage

First language learning is essential part of child's total growth of awareness of

world around him. He starts off with blank sheet, then starts
collecting/selecting organising the experience of a totally new world, perceived
through his senses, by formulating a variety of pre-verbal concepts.

Subsequently part of the process of learning how to live is the acquisition of

skills to verbalise his desires and aversions and to label his concepts, so as to
make living more sufficient and secure.

Effectiveness of these verbalising skills depends on maturation level of the

child / on type of environment on intelligence.

Language is part of an intrinsic process through which child learns to

recognise/ deal with new situations.

3 Compare learning of second language

• At 11 years of age, child is not interested in recognition of new living

situations, child has normally learned the basic concepts and can handle
situations for ordinary living purposes. So as far as 'learning to live' is
concerned, no similarities between two processes of learning. (not the
case for immigrant children - they need to learn English for survival
purposes - therefore motivating force is totally different).
• Older child has already at his disposal a first language, which is securely
fixed to the universe of things; (s)he is equipped with this advantage;
first language learner does not have this.
• Older child is more mature and it would seem nonsensical to imitate first
language learning processes totally for learning additional language.
(think of contact hours needed) this is argument for using MT (anti
Direct Method).
• What does foreign language learner wish to know first?
to know the FL equivalent of MT sentences/ words used in hitherto
familiar situations.
 • To learn how to handle certain known/ recurring situations through the
medium of the FL. He doesn't wish to handle completely new situations
in FL terms.

4 The Direct Method rejects use of the printed word - but this objection is
illogical since second language learner has already mastered his reading skills.

Does printed word interfere with FL pronunciation? -In fact experiments show
that the printed word is of real help to consolidate the FL and actually
reinforces retention (ef 'Je ma pel') - leaves mental imprint, image of shape of
word.

5 Later disciples of Direct Method took it to extremes and refused to speak a

single word of English in lessons. To avoid translating new words, they
searched for an association between new words and the idea it stood for: 'Voilà
un livre, voici une craie'. Extreme Direct Methodists had cupboards full of
realia. Explanations became cumbersome and time-consuming. (Definition type
explanations UN meunier est UN homme qui travaille dans UN moulin' / 'court
est le contraire de long'). Teachers would be jumping over desks flapping fins,
rather than say that the English for 'saumon' is 'salmon'. Concepts like
cependant'/ 'néanmoins' - obviously need immediate translation!

6 Successful teacher of the Direct Method needed competence in his language

/ stamina/ energy/ imagination/ ability and time to create own materials and
courses - beyond capacity of all but gifted few.

"The method by its very nature presupposes a teacher of immense vitality, of

robust health, one endowed with real fluency in the modern language he
teaches. He must be resourceful in the way of gesture and tricks of facial
expression, able to sketch rapidly on the board and in the language teaching
day, he must be proof against linguistic fatigue".

7 Also Direct Methodists failed to grade and structure their materials

adequately - no selection, grading or controlled presentation of vocabulary and
structures. Plunged pupils into flood of living language - quite bewildering for
pupils.

However, many teachers did modify the Direct Method to meet practical
requirements of own schools, implemented main principles, i.e teaching
through oral practice and banning all translation into target language.
Obviously compromise was needed.
Direct method did pave the way for more communicative, oral based approach,
and as such represented an important step forward in the history of language
teaching.

Comparison of first and second-language learning processes (Language

Teaching and the Bilingual Method, CJ Dodson, Pitman Publishing
1967,ISBN 0 273 31665 6)

If first and second-language learning processes are compared, the following

pattern emerges-

First-language learner Second-language learner

1. He has no command of another 1. He has command of another

language before learning the target language before learning the
language target language

2 He is neurologically immature, 2. He is neurologically

thus his mother tongue is not fixed
3. He learns to recognise and cope
with reality through the target
language
4. He requires a high contact-
mature,thus his mother tongue is
fixed
3. He learns to recognise and
cope with reality through the
mother tongue, not the target
frequency with the target language
to learn that all things have names
5 He requires a high contact-
frequency with the target language
to recognise the meaning of sounds
representing the names of things,
because he
is neurologically immature because
his range of experience with the
outside world is limited and as
he has no knowledge of the
equivalent meaning of sounds from
another language for the same
things
6. He requires a high contact-
frequency to establish integration of
mother-tongue sounds with things
language
4. He already knows that all
things have names
5. He has already experienced
the process, involving high
contact-frequency and
maturation, of recognising the
meaning of sounds representing
the names of things in his mother
tongue. As he is now
neurologically mature, he need
not be subjected a second time to
the same process in the new
target language merely to
recognise the equivalent meaning
of target-language sounds for the
same things. (Recognition of the
sound representing the thing
should not be confused With
the integration of the sound with
the thing, set

6 He has already established

integration of mother-tongue
sounds with things, but requires
high contact-frequency to
establish new integration of
target-language sounds with the
same things
www.aber.ac.uk/~mflwww/.../langteach5.htm

The Direct Method (Natural Method)

The Direct Method has one very basic rule: No translation is allowed.

This method is called natural method because it is used naturalistic principles of language
learning (Jack C. Richard and Theodore S. Rodger: 1992). This term also derived from
the school which L Sauveur had opened in Boston in the late 1860s. Sauveur and other
believers in the Natural Method argued that a foreign language could be taught without
translation or the use of the learner’s native tongue if meaning was conveyed directly
through demonstration and action.

According to Franke, a language could best be taught by using it actively in the

classroom.

In fact, the Direct Method receives its name from the fact that meaning is to be conveyed
directly in the target language through the use of demonstration and visual aids, with no
recourse to the students’ native language (Diller 1978).

Principles and Procedures (Jack C. Richard and Theodore S. Rodger: 1992:

1. Classroom instruction was conducted exclusively in the target language.

2. Only everyday vocabulary and sentences were taught.

3. Oral communication skills were built up in a carefully graded progression

organized around question and answer exchanges between teachers and students
in small, intensive classes.

4. Grammar was taught inductively.

5. New teaching points were introduced orally.

6. Concrete vocabulary was taught through demonstration, objects, and pictures;

abstract vocabulary was taught by association of ideas.

7. Both speech and listening comprehension were taught.

8. Correct pronunciation and grammar were emphasized.

hendrawisesa.blogspot.com/.../techniques-and-principles-in-language.html